1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

UFC results

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Seabasket, Dec 30, 2006.

  1. GimpyScribe

    GimpyScribe Member

    Mert, thank you for at least having a reason for your stance and explaining it thoroughly. Though I disagree, at least you explained yourself, unlike some people on this thread.

    You say pay-per-view buyrates don't impress you because it's still a sign of those who are already interested. Before 2006, the highest buyrate for a UFC event was around 325,000. This year, has seen events top 600,000 a handful of times. That's a pretty rapid accension and can't be explained away by saying those people were already interested in it. New fans are flocking to the sport, plain and simple. For that to be ignored is foolish.
    And yes, it does cater to males 18-40, but that is the demographic advertisers aim for. That's the demographic that spends money.
    On some level, it is brutal and barbaric ... so is football and boxing. Boxing's problem is it has forgotten how to market its fighters. Unless you have a fighter that knows how to market himself to the masses, it's just not going to happen. UFC has done an amazing job of using cable television to introduce its fighters to the fans. I think that's a big reason for the big jump in pay-per-view buys. New fans are learning who these fighters are and want to see them compete.
    When you watch an entire event, you'll see the strategy involved. Last night's matchup between Liddell and Ortiz was classic. Ortiz is a far superior wrestler and wanted to take the match down to the mat. However, Liddell is a far superior puncher and wanted to stay standing. Ortiz spent most of the fight trying to set up Liddell for a takedown. It wasn't just two guys throwing wild haymakers.

    To most, it is still just a "fringe" sport. But it's still a sport that deserves some recognition. The L.A. Times, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle and even the New York Times have run some coverage of events recently. More and more newspapers are jumping into the fray. That can't be ignored. Again, it may not be for everyone, but my argument is, there is readership out there for this sport and it shouldn't be ignored because it's relatively new or because of personal preference.
  2. doubledown68

    doubledown68 Active Member

    I still think that if the monkey-style guy doesn't run into the pseudo-sumo, he gives JCVD fits... we'd all be saying Chung Li Who?
  3. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    I probably should have explained a little more ... but I'll be absolutely honest with you. This event is so far from being in our sports section that giving it much thought would be an exercise in futility.

    Why? Because it is looked upon in much the same way as pro wrestling by a majority of the populace (whether it should be or not). And pro wrestling is not going to make it into our, or many, sports sections. The X-Games barely do. They do, but barely.

    Just because somebody creates a sport and finds a niche does not necessarily mean that there's a MASS market for it.
  4. GimpyScribe

    GimpyScribe Member

    There shouldn't have to a "mass" market for it. There are tons of things that run regularly in the sports section that aren't necessarily enjoyed by the masses. And, I think people are mistaking my argument that the sport should be covered for me saying it should be front-page news, above the fold. I don't think that at all. I just think there's room in the sports section for a story or two, whether it be a gamer, previews or an occasional feature story. Test the waters, see how readership responds and go from there.
  5. MertWindu

    MertWindu Active Member

    Not in my section, there's not.
  6. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    I think this is the scene shortly after the bad guy throws that blinding agent into his eye, and by sheer force of will, he conjures up mystic powers of sight to beat his oppressor. This happens in UFC, too.
  7. GimpyScribe

    GimpyScribe Member

    So, I guess I should assume you're hindered by a 6-page section on a daily basis. If that's the case, then it's understandable.
  8. GimpyScribe

    GimpyScribe Member

    That's how Royce Gracie defeated Kimo at UFC 3. :)
  9. MertWindu

    MertWindu Active Member

    You'd be right, usually less in fact. Regardless, it's not as though sports sections print with actual holes in them, so tell me, what should get the axe in favor of UFC?
  10. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    There's plenty of room in the community calendar that the 95-year-old lady who can't help from sticking her tongue in and out puts together.
  11. Idaho

    Idaho Active Member

    World's Strongest Man or World Series of Poker.

    It's on ESPN, so it must be a sport.
  12. MertWindu

    MertWindu Active Member

    I'm saying stuff that's already IN the section. My shop ran exactly one WSOP story: the final one, leading briefs, maybe, because there was a whole lotta nothin' going on that day.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page